The High Court has granted an urgent hearing to a judicial review challenging the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax reliefs for farms and family businesses, in a move that significantly raises the legal stakes around reforms currently passing through Parliament.
The claim, brought by Collyer Bristow LLP on behalf of professional services firm Alvarez & Marsal and claimants including Thomas Martin, George Martin and campaign group Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, targets changes to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR).
Following what the court described as “regrettable administrative delays” in handling the case, the claimants sought judicial intervention to accelerate proceedings. On 19 January 2026, Mrs Justice Lang ordered that the case proceed to a rare “rolled-up” hearing, covering both permission to bring the judicial review and the substantive merits of the claim.
The two-day hearing will take place in February or March 2026, with the court recognising that the issues raised are time-critical and of significant public importance.
At the heart of the challenge is the claimants’ argument that the Government acted unlawfully by conducting only a limited technical consultation on a narrow aspect of the proposed APR and BPR reforms. They argue this fell short of established public law standards, particularly given the scale of the potential impact on farming families, business owners and the wider agricultural and commercial economy.
The claimants say the lack of a full and meaningful consultation breached the Government’s own consultation principles and denied affected taxpayers the opportunity to influence policy before it was finalised.
Given the constitutional sensitivity of the issues, the Speaker of the House of Commons has been granted permission to intervene as an interested party. His counsel will assist the court on matters relating to parliamentary privilege, the separation of powers, and the appropriate use of parliamentary materials in judicial proceedings.
James Austen, partner at Collyer Bristow with conduct of the claim, said the court’s decision to expedite the case was highly unusual and reflected its importance.
“This ruling means a High Court judge will determine whether the Government acted unlawfully by introducing these changes without consulting taxpayers in line with its own policy,” he said. “Rolled-up hearings are exceptionally rare, and for one to be listed so promptly underlines the seriousness of the issues at stake.”
Marvin Rust, head of tax EMEA at Alvarez & Marsal, said the reforms created damaging uncertainty for family-owned enterprises.
“Restricting long-standing inheritance tax reliefs is a major policy shift,” he said. “Introducing changes of this magnitude without proper consultation runs contrary to well-established principles. We welcome the court’s decision to determine whether the process was lawful.”
Tom Martin, the lead claimant, said the case was about safeguarding due process rather than blocking parliamentary decision-making.
“By choosing not to carry out a proper consultation, the Government denied farmers and business owners the chance to influence policy that could fundamentally affect their livelihoods,” he said. “This case matters to everyone affected by the proposed tax changes.”
Because the APR and BPR reforms are already being debated as part of the draft Finance Bill currently in Committee stage in the House of Commons, the court cannot order the Government to conduct a fresh consultation. The claimants are therefore seeking a declaration that the consultation carried out was unlawful.
If the court agrees, such a declaration would not invalidate the legislation itself, but would formally recognise that the Government’s process fell short of legal standards. While ministers would retain discretion over how to proceed, the ruling could increase political and legal pressure to revisit how the reforms are implemented.
The High Court has issued detailed case management directions to ensure the case proceeds without further delay, setting the stage for one of the most significant legal challenges to recent inheritance tax reforms.
